Case study audi l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

Case Study: Audi PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 127 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Case Study: Audi . 1. Schematics (wireframes) 2. „Jumping Boxes“ 3. Right vs. Left Navigation. Sch e matics. Problem: Traceability. D ocuments separate & independent. Changes & updates inefficient Version control problemati c. Sch e matics. Solution: Adobe GoLive.

Download Presentation

Case Study: Audi

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Case study audi l.jpg

Case Study: Audi


Slide2 l.jpg

  • 1. Schematics (wireframes)

  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“

  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation


Sch e matics l.jpg

Schematics

Problem: Traceability

  • Documents separate & independent

  • Changes & updates inefficient

  • Version control problematic


Slide4 l.jpg

Schematics

Solution: Adobe GoLive

Convergence of deliverables

  • Sitemap and schematics linked 1:1

  • Components = modular construction

  • WebDAV server

    • concurrent work on schematics

    • remote access by client

  • Cross Platform: PC and Mac; HTML


Slide5 l.jpg

Schematics


Slide6 l.jpg

Schematics

Disadvantages

  • Site file grew to 30+ mb

  • Unstable, crashed

  • Sitemap tool is suboptimal

  • Didn‘t get team buy-in

Overall GoLive met our expectations, but is the wrong tool for the job

Underscores need for an IA tool


Slide7 l.jpg

  • 1. Schematics (wireframes)

  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“

  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation


Slide8 l.jpg

Jumping Boxes

Problem: Variable Browser Sizes

Users surf with different window sizes

  • One screen size  Web design

  • Right navigation must be visible


Slide9 l.jpg

Jumping Boxes

Automated Layout

Three page layouts offered – S, M, L

from 640x480 to 1024x768

  • Fulfilled CI constraints

  • Brand: “Vorsprung durch Technik”


Slide11 l.jpg

Jumping Boxes

Disadvantages

  • Technically difficult to implement

  • Usability problems?

  • Not needed for all page types

A complex solution for a simple problem


Slide12 l.jpg

  • 1. Schematics (wireframes)

  • 2. „Jumping Boxes“

  • 3. Right vs. Left Navigation


Slide13 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Challenge: Competitive Difference

Right navigation = Audi as innovator

  • Smoother interaction with scrollbar

  • Greater focus on content

  • Subjectively accepted by users


Slide14 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

External Test: www.SirValuse.de

2 prototypes: 1 left & 1 right navigation

64 users: 2 groups

  • Part 1 – Six tasks were timed

  • Part 2 - Eye movement analysis

  • Part 3 - Interviews


Slide15 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 1 - Hypothesis

Time

R

Significant

L

12 3456

Tasks


Slide16 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 1 - Results

Time

No

Significance

R

L

12 3456

Tasks


Slide17 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 2 – Eye movement

Method: www.MediaAnalyzer.com

User rapidly coordinate clicks with where they look

  • Hypothesis:

    right navigation > focus on content


Slide18 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Results: Stronger focus on content


Slide19 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Part 3 – Interview

Do you like the right navigation?

7

23

2

:)

:|

:(


Slide20 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Subsequent Usability Test

„Normal” methods with 25 participants

  • Corroborated findings of first test

  • No difficulties with a right navigation

  • Positive subjective response

  • Only 1 commented on right navigation


Slide21 l.jpg

Right vs. Left Navigation

Conclusions

  • Users are ambidextrous in terms of navigation position

  • Consistency and learnability

  • People expect that websites vary

  • Interaction given by design and layout, not prior expectations (Affordance)


Thank you j im@razorfish de l.jpg

Thank [email protected]


  • Login